[sawdust123]

Here is what I noticed while browsing at tire rack:

Stock RS-As: Diameter-25.4", Weight-23 lbs, Load-93W
Kumho ASX stock size: Diameter-25.1", weight-22 lbs, load-93W
Kumho ASX 215/50-17: Diameter-25.5", weight-23 lbs, load-91W
Avon 550 225/50-17: Diameter-25.9", weight-27 lbs, load-94W
Avon 550 215/50-17: Diamater-25.5, weight-27 lbs, load-91W

I really don't consider myself a tire expert but the following seems logical to me.

* The 4 pounds (17%) higher weight (than stock) of the Avons would reduce mileage by a greater factor than the savings produced by its 0.5" (2%) larger diameter. Rolling weight reduces mileage much more than non-rolling weight.

* The four longitudinal grooves of the Avon will remove water better than the two grooves on the ASXs. Also, the tread depth of the Avons is 1/32" deeper than the ASXs. However, this may be negated because the larger contact area with the road. In other words, the weight per square inch is decreased thereby giving the tire less ability to cur through the water.

* The 215/50-17 Avons or ASXs seem like a better size match to the stock tires. However, the load rating is lower. Does this imply a weaker sidewall that will be more prone to curb pops? I can't imagine the actual load rating will make that much difference to me.

* The Avons have a lower treadware rating than the ASXs 360 vs. 420. However they have 1/32" more tread depth. I don't know if I can trust any of these numbers as a guide to longevity due to difference in tread compound. What say you?

* The Avons have universally good reviews. The ASXs have more reviews and a greater spread in number. Very few are PT Cruiser reviews. Should I bother giving these any mind?